Alerting responses to 1M

[MickyB]

We play -

 

1M:1NT is 5-12 NF, opener passes with an 11-13 5M332 [and would have opened 1N with 14-16 5M332].

1M:2X is natural; either 9-10 with 2M, invitational with 6+X or a game-force

1M:2M shows a good 7-10 if balanced, weaker balanced hands with three-card support usually respond 1NT. We haven't agreed whether we would pass, respond 1N or respond 2M on a 5431 four-count with three-card support.

 

Are 1M:1N and 1M:2M alertable? What about 1S:2D - should we alert this response? Or, perhaps, alert responder's rebid on auctions like 1S:2D, 2S:P promising two spades, and 1S:2D, 2S:2N natural GF?

 

While I am here, am I right in thinking that the only unalertable meaning of 1H-X-2S is a strong-jump shift?

 

Thanks

[jallerton]

We play -

 

1M:1NT is 5-12 NF, opener passes with an 11-13 5M332 [and would have opened 1N with 14-16 5M332].

1M:2X is natural; either 9-10 with 2M, invitational with 6+X or a game-force

1M:2M shows a good 7-10 if balanced, weaker balanced hands with three-card support usually respond 1NT. We haven't agreed whether we would pass, respond 1N or respond 2M on a 5431 four-count with three-card support.

 

Are 1M:1N and 1M:2M alertable?

Thanks

 

Yes, in my view. Both have suffciently potentially unexpected meanings.

 

What about 1S:2D - should we alert this response? Or, perhaps, alert responder's rebid on auctions like 1S:2D, 2S:P promising two spades, and 1S:2D, 2S:2N natural GF?

 

You certainly need to alert one or the other.

 

While I am here, am I right in thinking that the only unalertable meaning of 1H-X-2S is a strong-jump shift?

 

Any natural and forcing meaning is not alertable.

[helene_t]

I see some people alerting natural gameforcing 2/1 responses. Is that correct? It the Netherlands, 2/1 GF is not alertable but Netherlands is a strong-notrump country so there 2/1 responses will be sound even if not played as game force. In England, players are more inclined to make negative doubles of responder's 2/1 bid as a 2/1 response doesn't always mean that the board belongs to them. So I can see why alerting 2/1 GF would serve a purpose.

[paulg]

Are 1M:1N and 1M:2M alertable?

 

 

Yes, in my view. Both have suffciently potentially unexpected meanings.

In a strong event like the Spring Foursomes at the end of the month, I would not consider that these are potentially unexpected meanings.

[bluejak]

I see some people alerting natural gameforcing 2/1 responses. Is that correct? It the Netherlands, 2/1 GF is not alertable but Netherlands is a strong-notrump country so there 2/1 responses will be sound even if not played as game force. In England, players are more inclined to make negative doubles of responder's 2/1 bid as a 2/1 response doesn't always mean that the board belongs to them. So I can see why alerting 2/1 GF would serve a purpose.

The alerting rules in each jurisdiction are based on what the authorities think are best for the players in that jurisdiction [and they will be told they are wrong by some of those players]. In England, a game-forcing 2 over 1 is alertable.

[jallerton]

In a strong event like the Spring Foursomes at the end of the month, I would not consider that these are potentially unexpected meanings.

 

This raises the question of whether players should alert a call in a particular sequence against opponent A but not against opponent B, on the basis that the meaning may be "unexpected" to opponent A but not to opponent B. Whilst I think the answer ought to be yes in some situations, I believe that the official EBU answer is no.

 

In the Spring Foursomes, I'm sure that there will be plenty of pairs playing 1M-P-2M as constructive and plenty playing two-over-ones as game forcing.

 

However, I'd be surprised to find anyone else playing Mike's hybrid two-over-one responses.

[MickyB]

Our teammates are :)

[dburn]

In a strong event like the Spring Foursomes at the end of the month, I would not consider that these are potentially unexpected meanings.

It is, I suppose, possible that the Spring Foursomes will not become a strong event until the beginning of next month. But if you can respond 1NT to 1♠ (5+ cards) with all of:

 

♠Qxx ♥x ♦Kxxxxx ♣xxx

 

♠x ♥AQxx ♦KJxxx ♣Qxx

 

♠xx ♥Axxx ♦Jxxx ♣xxx

 

then I would say you need to alert it, rather than assume that your opponents play the same way you do.

[paulg]

It is, I suppose, possible that the Spring Foursomes will not become a strong event until the beginning of next month.

True for some of course, but for half the field it probably starts off as a strong event.

 

But if you can respond 1NT to 1♠ (5+ cards) with all of:

 

♠Qxx ♥x ♦Kxxxxx ♣xxx

 

♠x ♥AQxx ♦KJxxx ♣Qxx

 

♠xx ♥Axxx ♦Jxxx ♣xxx

 

then I would say you need to alert it, rather than assume that your opponents play the same way you do.

Okay.

 

 

[Finch]

The alerting rules in each jurisdiction are based on what the authorities think are best for the players in that jurisdiction [and they will be told they are wrong by some of those players]. In England, a game-forcing 2 over 1 is alertable.

 

It's also simpler to make a FG 2/1 alertable. One could argue that it shouldn't be, because it's forcing, like an Acol 2/1 so why does it matter. But it makes the auction simpler. After 1S P 2C (f/g, not alerted) P I would then have to alert a 2S or 3C rebid (because it is unexpectedly forcing) and then responder's 2NT or 3S bid next round, because they are unexpectedly forcing.... it's much easier just to alert the 2/1 in the first place.

[barmar]

GF 2/1 used to be alertable in ACBL, but that was changed sometime in the late 90's or early 2000's, when a majority of tournament players had adopted this style. I think this was before announcements had been invented; if they'd been around at the time, I suspect it would have been made an announcement, since even now it's not even close to the popularity of Jacoby/Texas transfers, which are announcements.